Weather is pretty crappy outside. And perhaps its finally sunk in that they simply arent going to win.

Walker and the GOP have played this brilliantly. Walker has stayed firm but has stated his position well...and hasnt said anything inflammatory or stupid. And the Democrats fleeing has only given the public more time to actually do research and see just how much money most state employees and teachers actually bring in.

The unions are on board with paying into their pensions and for their health care. It's the stripping of almost all bargaining rights they object to.

WHAT?!?!? OMG!!!! They wont' be able to collectively bargain for their salary and benefits anymore? Why, THAT'S AN OUTRAGEOUS OUTRAGE!!!! IT'S UNION-BUSTING!!!!!!!!

Oh... wait... you mean, they won't be able to dictate class sizes and other school policy anymore, and will just have to stick with negotiating pay rates and stuff. They'll also be allowed to vote each year on whether to keep the union or not. THAT'S what you mean by "stripping of almost all bargaining rights". Ok. Much less outrageously outrageous. Phew. I was worried for a second.

They prefer to force people to join their union, then force them to donate to corrupt Dems and their pet causes. So I'm not sympathetic to their claims that their "rights" are being violated, when they clearly don't practice what they preach.

All the Dems are doing is setting themselves up for another PR nightmare if they arent back by Friday and pass the budget bill, as if they dont it costs the state another $150 million in debt refinancing costs. Good luck explaining that to the state workers that get laid off if that happens.

Ive said it a million times...all Walker has to do is start firing people. Then they will come back.

From the signs I saw at the Capitol on Saturday these are not just collective bargaining rights that will be taken away it will be unions "Human Rights". So now instead of what are called bargaining right, which are really privileges granted by law we are stripping the unions of Human Rights. Oh dear, call Amnesty International - we have a situation here that needs to be remedied immediately!

"Oh... wait... you mean, they won't be able to dictate class sizes and other school policy anymore, and will just have to stick with negotiating pay rates and stuff. They'll also be allowed to vote each year on whether to keep the union or not. THAT'S what you mean by "stripping of almost all bargaining rights". Ok. Much less outrageously outrageous. Phew. I was worried for a second."

Yeah, that's pretty much it.

It sounds better to complain about bargaining rights, though. There is just no way to make it sound good to complain about making contributions that are still less than most people have to do.

This is some theme you've embraced, garbage. The voters are outraged because of public employee unrest and protest.

Not, the voters are outraged over the luxurious salaries and benefits of public employees, and they understand that public employees will throw a tantrum when those luxurious salaries and benefits are threatened.

Really, garbage, nobody's crying because the public peace has been upset.

I saw a really old cartoon that was totally racist, and I'm all, "They got away with this stuff?"

Two guys are walking through the jungle, one is wearing a pith helmet and the other is a native guide. The scene changes to a group of natives banging on a drum and the sound coming out of the drum is,

BOOM titty BOOM titty BOOMBOOMbuhBOOM.

Back to the two guys walking. The white guy in the pith helmet asks the native guide, "What are those drums saying?"The native guide answers, "Aw, dem drums say'n ...

It's all over now, isn't it? Time for da teachers to go home and get a good night's sleep 'cuz they gotta get up early in the morning.

Walker demonstrated patience and smarts in not disrupting the protests; now he gets what he wants. His opponents made lots of noise and lots of fuss. While the protests made for an exciting news story for the first few days, they accomplished diddly squat, absolute diddly squat. Nobody really sympathized with the teachers that much, especially when so many observers have so much else to worry about.

For some strange reason, the teachers seemed to think that they could get what they want if they just made more of a fuss, protested a little louder, made their point a little more creatively. That don't work these days; it fails to capture national attention like it did in the 60s and 70s. The era of the American political protest having any impact whatsoever is no more.

If anything, these protests backfired-- now public opinion will be significantly more anti-union that it was before.

As someone who is far to the left, it's time for the Senators to come back. I agree that tomorrow will be the day they reach that conclusion as well.

They did the best they could in the situation. From the beginning, they never could have stopped this bill. Instead they drew attention to it ( a lot of attention to it). It will definitely be a salient issue come election time. And, rightly so, the people of Wisconsin will vote on the issue.

I just hope that we don't see a series of disenfranchising moves before then. (Rightly or wrongly, Unions certainly motivate their members to vote - this bill stops the unions in WI).

That said, I'd like to see the olive branch extended to the democrats upon their return by Walker. I may actually give him credit to be magnanimous in "victory".

Really, the unions brought this on themselves. First, unions in general, and public sector unions in particular, have made themselves a linchpin of Democrat politics. Is there any other major economic/social group that is so one-sided in their politics? I mean, for all the Dem posing, Wall Street gives pretty evenly to both parties (and titled in favor of the Dems in '08 - they know how to hedge), and even the hated oil and coal companies give to the Dems. So for the GOP there really is no downside to trying to smash the public sector unions, and to paraphrase Rahm Emmanuel, this economic and employment crisis is the perfect time to do it.

Second, unions like the Teachers Unions bring state and even national-level resources to bear on local negotiations - anyone with eyes can see who is David and who is Goliath when they negotiate. Add to that the fact that they don't just negotiate (or dictate if you prefer) their own pay and benefits, but almost every facet of education policy.

There is a fascinating diary on the Daily Kos which alleges that the real point of the budget bill has nothing to do with unions or collective bargaining. The provisions to get rid of the public employee unions were inserted in the bill deliberately to foster the loud controversy that has resulted, in order to deflect attention from the real goody in the bill.

There is a provision that allows the governor to authorize the sale or lease of any state=owned power plants without competitive bidding or legislative review. The Daily Kos diarist speculates that once the bill is passed, Walker will sell off power plants at bargain basement prices to the Koch Bros., who were instrumental in his election.

As conspiracy theories go, I find it quite appealing. Of course, there will be an uproar if this happens, and Walker is likely to be recalled, or certainly defeated for re-election. But if the theory is true, he probably has a guarantee of a nice post-politics job with the Bros.

Anyway, just passing the thought along. You can read it for yourself (it's not my diary... this isn't a self-promotion) :http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/02/21/947947/-The-Koch-Brothers-End-Game-in-Wisconsin

It occurs to me that stripping unions of collective bargaining powers would create precisely the sort of situation that supporters of the measure say they are opposed to.

Even without collective bargaining, there will still be public employee unions (the state can't repeal the first amendment guarantee of free association). So what will the unions do if they can't negotiate wages (if they are legislatively pegged to the CPI), benefits, or working conditions. Simple. They engage in political action. If the legislature has sole authority to determine wages and benefits, the unions are going to have their lobbyists in Madison applying pressures. They will be reporting back to their members who's naughty and nice. They will be funneling funds to their favorite candidates.

With no bargaining power, the unions will entirely be focused on controlling the political process. And this is something the Republicans think is a good outcome?

Roger L Simon lays it out. ...why has our left become so reactionary, so unwilling or unable to adapt to a changed world that they “act out” with all the juvenility of adolescents deprived of the family car keys? Some say it is because they have replaced religious faith with politics and I, an agnostic, see some truth in that. But there is more. Liberalism has become a mask for greed in our culture – a way of hiding excessive selfishness from others and, importantly, from the self. It’s a deflection, really....

Huge numbers are unemployed. But when asked to pull together for the good of the mean, the liberals, the ones who pay the greatest lip service to equality, say NO.

They hide behind “Union! Union! Union!” and “No pasaran!,” but it’s all a fake. When the chips are down, our modern liberals are overcome by their own sense of entitlement. Christopher Lasch’s Culture of Narcissism has infected them to such a degree reality cannot intrude.

That characteristic eagerness to grandstand on extraneous issues, while ignoring federal crises, is characteristic of this administration. It will not make meaningful progress in addressing its own massive trillion-dollar debts, reexamine the looming disaster of ObamaCare, gear up to produce more gas and oil in the face of skyrocketing energy costs, or seriously explore ways to get unemployment down below 9%...

Why, why, why all this? In a word, because that is what community organizers are supposed to do, even — or rather, especially — when they become the establishment. Cannot we answer Giuliani’s question? As a general rule, the “organizer” is not indigenous to the community, but as a sort of roaming utopian he travels widely to detect supposed foci of injustice (think an Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson), even to the point of worrying about professors being locked out of their homes or the tranquility of ice cream parlors in Arizona.

Almost immediately there is an artificial divide constructed between an oppressive “them” and a victimized “us,” usually on rigid class, gender, and racial lines. Some such university study is cited to “prove” injustice based on the absence of parity in income, health care, or education. Then the community organizer rallies the “community” to “get in their face” and agitate, which can encompass anything from suing in court, holding mass rallies, conducting voter registration drives with accordant intimidation, visiting the private homes of supposedly culpable officials, bankers, and the wealthy, and threatening strikes, slow-downs and disruptions.

President Obama need not worry about budget deficits in the manner of Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin. Unlike state officials, he can print money, and raise fees and taxes. The nation’s more affluent, unlike blue-state refugees seeking red-state low tax sanctuaries, cannot flee anywhere. That makes it easy for President Obama to weigh in on the Wisconsin unrest by suggesting an insolvent state government was more interested in destroying the public unions than meeting a $3 billion budget shortfall.

The Left, during the last domestic crisis, Vietnam, successfully beat their drums to victory. Most people forget that the Vietnam War always enjoyed majority American support; there's a reason Nixon won in a landslide in 1972.

The intelligentsia, the establishment media, and the entertainment community first discovered their power then, and to this day, control the discussion on what really happened in Nam.

I see the public fiscal crisis and the drum-beating favored subculture (of profoundly average people peddling nostrums of personal virtue) through the same lens.

However, people are no longer dependent on three networks. And they've been Charlie Sheen'd and Barbwa Streisand'd off Hollywood.

The Left does not have a terribly striking position to take -- "We deserve a better life than the people who pay our salaries, and the people united blah blah blah" -- but it is striking that they don't realize it's not 1972.

Obama had better be careful because if he continues to comment on this situation he will simply be revealed to the casual observer voters for what he is: an unregenerate Leftist agitator, dismissive of the common weal.

I question the idea that the left "lost" Vietnam. Vietnam was bungled by Johnson and Nixon. Nixon won in 1968/1972. Nixon's paranoia led to Watergate which led to the big 1974 Democratic sweep. I honestly think the big demonstrations had nothing to do with it. The "silent majority" detested them.

Let's keep the facts straight. The bill does not strip public employees of "almost all" bargaining rights. They can still unionize and they can still bargain about wages -- the biggest ticket item by far and for most, the biggest subject of concern. Responsibility does get shifted to the union (horrors!) for collecting its own dues and for recertifying every year, but that will be no problem at all. As we know from the union officials and all these impassioned protestors, the union is the most important thing in the lives of all public employees and they will certainly vote joyously to recertify and happily write their dues checks.

In Boots and Sabers on Feb 9, Owen Robinson quoted a West Bend Daily News story that said the West Bend Schools receive about 1000 applications for every open teaching position. Sounds like there may be no shortage of applicants.

Through my entire working life, we have funded teachers retirement plans 100%. Provided them with the best health insurance available. Through it all, the teachers have done nothing but whine, whine, whine how tough they have it. I quit volunteering at my kids schools after spending an evening at parent teacher conferences listening to the teachers go on and on about the unfairness of having to work an evening. If they had shown the public some gratitude and respect over the years, they may have had more support in this fight.

"The unions are on board with paying into their pensions and for their health care. It's the stripping of almost all bargaining rights they object to."

but the union bosses are not on board with losing their ability to collect/coerce money from their members and then kick it back to Dem pols who lard the union's pay/benefits at public expense. That's the underlying issue that now one talks about.

Comments about overpaid public workers on a blog run by a UW law professor (public employee and a lawyer) on State time given when she posts is priceless!

In other words, You, a Law Professor.

All UW Professors are supposed to do some kind of Community Service. It's not really called that I don't think -- Community Service brings to mind a crime penalty. I think althouse could easily argue that blogging constituted that service.

@Lincolntf -- While I'm in agreement with you on the issue, the "children as human shield" talking point is idiotic. People bring their children to peaceful assemblies all the time. When my wife went to the state house to show support for a new state funding formula she brought our kids. If you believe in something important, you want your kids to be understand it and be part of it.

Even if what you believe is wrong-headed nonsense, it's still your call. Tea party folks bring their kids to protests too, as well they should.

"Human shield" is rhetorical overkill. Like the "Nazi" tag, the lack of actual political violence makes it inane and, frankly, reprehensible.

Zip it, Henry. I know what I meant and I meant it. The only reason these harridans and hooligans trot out their children (or the children whoo are supposed to be in their classrooms) is to protect themselves from criticism. Shields.

@GMay -- I think you're projecting. For the most part the union members going to the protest were reveling in solidarity and encountering no criticism (at least until Saturday). The criticism was external to the event.

Those who use the term "human shields" seek to manipulate the presence of children at the event just as plainly as the people who brought them.

Like the fascist accusation, it's a rhetorical play that is singularly unconvincing.

Do I have this right - you can clearly see what it is we think, but we're just not getting you? Is that it? Sincere question.

Obviously you think it's unpersuasive. Obviously, others disagree. Personally, I don't think the side whose democratically elected representatives fled the state to purposely undermine the democratic process, who behave in a highly unethical manner on the taxpayer dime and encourage other people's children to do the same, or who casually toss out Hitler references themselves are really open to persuasion, let alone reason.

So no, you're incorrect in assuming my thoughts are about your understanding of semantics and metaphor. I just think you're being a silly pedant. Calling them human shields is an effective rhetorical device. Rhetoric and invective have had a place in public discourse since the birth of Western society.

I wonder what precedential effect the anti-democratic actions of the 14 state senators will have on our political institutions in general if the democrats were to prevail on this issue (say that some republicans change their vote or that they have to acquiesce to avoid shutting down the state govenrment). The demos are calling it just good political tactics... but where does it end. Maybe in the future preventing people to vote (using legal means) will be just good political tactics.

It reminds me of the Roman Consul Biblios, who while serving as co-consul with Caesar sought an anti-democratic solution to Caesar's proposed reforms. Biblios simply used his power to declare a religious holiday and that every day for the rest of Caesar's term was a religious holiday thus making it illegal for the people's assembly to meet (it could not meet on religious holidays).

In the end Caesar took the additional anti-democratic step of ignoring Biblios and his right to veto legislation, and Biblios was forced to stay locked in his house while Caesar ruled by decree for the remainder of his term.

Anyway, as history proves, one anti-democratic step leads to another.....and another...

@GMay -- By the way, sorry about the "projecting" point. I actually had Lincolntf's 8:57 in my mind as I responded to you.

But I'll explain what I meant because it derives from the "human shields" phrase itself.

The idea being projected is that union parents brought children to the march as a way to response to criticism. That assumes knowledge of motivation that we don't have. In my opinion, it reflects the critics point-of-view -- that the protest was indefensible -- more than the union's. My guess is that most of the marchers sallied forth with the naive idea that no one but a few plutocrats and administrative toadies would object. I could be wrong, but that's my impression I got from the initial news and video reports.

Certainly some union defenders have pointed to the "independent" actions of high school students as support for the union position. That is a laughable proposition.

But from what I've read, most union defenders are arguing in age-old class-warfare terms and the presence of children at the march is about as significant to them as the presence of dachshunds.

Friday you had the anti-democratic step in the assembly. Lying to the Dems about when the vote was scheduled and then having votes without them present. Not that it matters since there is a solid majority, but they could of had the decency to let the Dems vote NO.

Ann, you didn't call them that but you obviously don't read your own blog. This has been a commentary on the overpaid privledged public workers. I was only pointing out the irony of people complaining about public workers on a blog run by a UW professor (a public worker). Once again an ironically challenged Republican.